CANADIANS DEMAND JUDICIARY GETS TOUGH IN SENTENCING CRIMINALS

Re: Crime bill 'a slap in the face' to judges, Gomery says, Nov. 27.

Retired judge John Gomery describes the plan to create mandatory
minimum jail terms for drug crimes as a "slap in the face" to judges.
He suggests the Conservatives don't trust the judiciary to create
appropriate sentences for individual cases. As much as I respect Mr.
Gomery, I respectfully disagree with him.

It was noted judges are unhappy about this proposal and other
legislation that suggests a failure on their part to impose proper
sentences. Frankly, if the judges were doing their work properly,
this wouldn't have been an idea whose time has come so that our
government needed to introduce reforms.

I don't know how often I read in the media of a drunk driver causing
injury or death who gets away with what appears to me to be a very
light sentence. And then I read that the same person convicted of the
crime re-offend later. In watching the TV evening news, I get the
same impression with the courts' treatment of people in the drug
trade who belong to gangs.

One purpose of the judiciary is to protect the population by removing
the dangerous criminals from society and placing them in prisons. My
strong impression is that the police are doing their jobs
effectively, but the judiciary are not imposing sentences appropriate
to the serious crime. The federal government has the responsibility
to pass laws that will protect the citizenry where the judiciary
fails. If it takes a governmental 'slap in the face' to get the
judiciary's attention, then so be it.

Bruce Switzer,

Ottawa